it's old, from may. not relevant imo
>unconfirmed
literally that is a confirmation. Or, it is a series of remarkable coincidences. In any case, it is at the very least, a highly notable and relevant data point in the authenticity debate.
it is I think very unwise to dismiss it out of hand immediately as "unconfirmed malarkey" . Let's just wait and see. in the meantime, it is simply a fact that the authenticity of the new q posts have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt